Accounts: Update an account

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context on top: the required auth header (api-access-token), the PATCH verb, and the extra_body merge channel. The note that text is sent unchanged and that IDs/numbers/phones may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits is a genuinely useful behavioral caveat. It stops short of describing error or partial-update behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by endpoint, auth and body details in a compact block. Every line carries information, though the encoding caveat is somewhat tangential and the whole is denser than a purely task-oriented description needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies auth requirements, the exact endpoint, the writable field, the extra_body escape hatch and an encoding caveat. The main omission is what PATCH does to fields not supplied, but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents account_id and name. The description goes further by clarifying that only 'name' is a first-class body field and that any other body keys must be routed through extra_body, plus the encoding note that applies to parameter values — meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update an account's attributes') and even pins the endpoint (PATCH /platform/api/v1/accounts/{account_id}), which separates it cleanly from create_account, get_account and delete_account. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other update_* siblings (update_user, update_agent_bot), but the resource name makes the distinction unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many update_* and *_account siblings. The verb implies mutation, but the agent is left to infer that this is the tool for changing an existing account rather than, say, re-creating it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.